Originally Posted by Catch22
And comparing law-abiding citizens with the extremely-rare mass murderer is even more asinine.
And SC said:
I doubt the parents of those children at Sandy Hook, Columbine, or VA Tech would agree with you.

Sorry for their loss, but just because they don't agree with that statement, doesn't make them right.

Why do the law abiding gun owners compare something designed to kill with objects that are not designed to kill?

Adam Lanza's mother was a law abiding gun owner. Her son stole her guns, killed her with them, and then killed some kids and teachers. Then himself.

I believe in changing ways that people can get guns and what guns people can get. Many people disagree. That's fine.

Ask my opinion...I'll tell you.
I'll do what I can about it....but knowing that I am just 1 person I know it will not accomplish much. I don't have the time/funding to fight a group like the NRA. And I don't have any politicians owing me favors to collect on to get them going any further.

That's life.

01-22-2013, 02:47 AM

FyredUp

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bones42

Why do the law abiding gun owners compare something designed to kill with objects that are not designed to kill?

Adam Lanza's mother was a law abiding gun owner. Her son stole her guns, killed her with them, and then killed some kids and teachers. Then himself.

I believe in changing ways that people can get guns and what guns people can get. Many people disagree. That's fine.

Ask my opinion...I'll tell you.
I'll do what I can about it....but knowing that I am just 1 person I know it will not accomplish much. I don't have the time/funding to fight a group like the NRA. And I don't have any politicians owing me favors to collect on to get them going any further.

That's life.

So you are in fact a member of the anti-gun crowd. You seek to stop criminals and the mentally ill by punitive action on law abiding citizens. Yeah, that doesn't have the makings of yet another doomed to failure anti-gun do nothing proposal.

01-22-2013, 11:27 AM

Catch22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bones42

Why do the law abiding gun owners compare something designed to kill with objects that are not designed to kill?

Why do the gun control folks refused to acknowledge many things that aren't designed to kill actually kill more than those things designed to kill? Or realize that the bigger problem isn't the "thing" at all, it's the people in control of it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bones42

Adam Lanza's mother was a law abiding gun owner. Her son stole her guns, killed her with them, and then killed some kids and teachers. Then himself.

I believe in changing ways that people can get guns and what guns people can get. Many people disagree. That's fine.

I won't argue with that point. There are people who have NO business with a gun. Adam Lanza was one. I'll go so far as to say it was irresponsible of his mother to have guns where he could even get to them, making her part of the problem.

Another AWB or magazine restrictions aren't going to do a thing to prevent this stuff. It's been proven. If we want to stop (or even minimize) these incidents, we have to be able to find the root cause and figure out how to address that.

How do we identify homicidal or suicidal people? How do we keep guns out of their hands? How do we deal with those who give them guns?

Then we can move to the next step. How do keep the guns out of the hands of criminals?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bones42

Ask my opinion...I'll tell you.
I'll do what I can about it....but knowing that I am just 1 person I know it will not accomplish much. I don't have the time/funding to fight a group like the NRA. And I don't have any politicians owing me favors to collect on to get them going any further.

That's life.

The biggest part of this whole problem is that we have politicians involved. There are actually those people who believe a bunch of corrupt people looking for the highest bidder, er... Donor... are actually going to find a legitimate answer to a problem.

I personnally don't want an AR, AK, or anything else. Most people I know that have one have no business with one. They are kids who have never been around a gun, play too many video games and didn't have the cajones to try to join the military, so they like to play soldier. However, that's their right and I believe in supporting that right so long as they are responsible.

01-22-2013, 01:56 PM

Bones42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catch22

Why do the gun control folks refused to acknowledge many things that aren't designed to kill actually kill more than those things designed to kill? Or realize that the bigger problem isn't the "thing" at all, it's the people in control of it?
...

Have not heard anyone ever state that.

No one denies there are more deaths by other methods.

But those other methods have a purpose other than killing. Guns don't. That is what a gun was designed for. That is a little difference.

01-22-2013, 01:59 PM

Bones42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catch22

...play too many video games...

Ah, the video game theory. I grew up playing Asteroids and Space Invaders. Has not led me to want to be in space shooting aliens. I also played a lot of Pong (the Atari version) and that has not made me want to be a ping pong player.

No, I don't buy into the video game playing makes someone act certain ways theory. (and there are restrictions on video games as to who can play them....)

01-22-2013, 02:13 PM

RFDACM02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bones42

But those other methods have a purpose other than killing. Guns don't. That is what a gun was designed for. That is a little difference.

Such as killing animals for food? Such as killing those who intend on doing harm to innocent people? They can be used to bring hours and lifetimes of enjoyment through shooting targets. Their intended usage really is not an issue at all except for those who seek a toal ban in a Utopian effort to bring peace to the world. We need guns, they're a necessity in this world, as much as that's not ideal, it's reality, so they're not going away.

People who have guns will generally be able to weild power over those who don't. While we may not see this like they do in Third World nations, we do see a need right here in the U.S to prevent crime. Guns in the hands of civilians stops literllly countless crimes every week (countless because many go unreported as they often do not result in a shot being fired). Like it or not the police are much like firefighters: we're reactive. The problem must exist before we're called. Much like our efforts to prevent fires have been unsuccessful as a whole, crime has also not been eradicated, thus many choose not to be victims. When seconds count the police are minutes away.

01-22-2013, 02:23 PM

RFDACM02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bones42

Ah, the video game theory. I grew up playing Asteroids and Space Invaders. Has not led me to want to be in space shooting aliens. I also played a lot of Pong (the Atari version) and that has not made me want to be a ping pong player.

That's not the issue with video games. Unlike the gun grabbers who imply guns actually make people commit crimes, those of us who note the violance in video games and movies are speaking to the point that children are inundated with violence to the point that they are much more desensitized to violence than generations passed. Killing is passe to kids now, whereas wehn I grew up, we had many violent TV shows (few video games) but they almost never showed the actual killing or deaths. Hell the A Team could shoot a millions rounds and no one ever died. Today if it's not graphic it's not on the air long. The video game industry similarly sell more of the most violent games than the other types.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bones42

No, I don't buy into the video game playing makes someone act certain ways theory. (and there are restrictions on video games as to who can play them....)

Do those restrictions work any better than the firearms restrictions on the books? Christ I know plenty of "upstanding" families that buy video games outside the recommended maturity levels for their kids, for fear the kids are ostracized at school for having prudish parents.

Please, explain to us how the following will stop future mass murders:

banning military looking firearms
banning high capacity magazines
taxing the crap out of ammunition

01-22-2013, 02:44 PM

Catch22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bones42

Have not heard anyone ever state that.

No one denies there are more deaths by other methods.

But those other methods have a purpose other than killing. Guns don't. That is what a gun was designed for. That is a little difference.

The silence is enough. We are in an uproar about "assault rifles" that kill FAR fewer poeple that most other means out there. The FBI has that information out there in the open. We aren't talking about banning handguns (which has been ruled unconstitutional), knives, or any other means of homicide. We're talking about a style of firearm that just happens to have been used in a couple of high-profile incidents while ignoring the fact that the men wielding them have psychiatric issues.

Firearms are designed to send a projectile at high speed with a certain amount of accuracy. The are used to kill, in some circumstances. Most are used to kill animals for sport and food. Many more are used for target practicing.

Knives are designed to slice and penetrate. They are used at a higher rate than rifles to slice and penetrate human flesh with the intent of killing them. Some knives are designed to result in a significant amount of damage when used on humans, including a channel designed to cause more bleeding. But we aren't talking about assualt knife bans, are we.

Blun weapons are designed for a number of uses- beating in nails, hitting balls, or other objects. Again, used in more homicides than rifles. Some, such as the "billy club" are designed to strike people to injure them, but we aren't discussing an assualt club ban, are we?

Cyanide and other poisons are designed to kill by various means. They are typically used to kill pests, but are often used to kill humans (Jonestown comes to mind). However, we are not talking about an assualt chemical ban.

This discussion has become about the tool utilized by the perpetrator. And it's just that, a TOOL. That tool can be a gun, a blunt object, poison, or even a vehicle. The problem isn't the tool, as it's just an inanimate object. It's the person who is in control of that inanimate object that is the problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bones42

Ah, the video game theory. I grew up playing Asteroids and Space Invaders. Has not led me to want to be in space shooting aliens. I also played a lot of Pong (the Atari version) and that has not made me want to be a ping pong player.

No, I don't buy into the video game playing makes someone act certain ways theory. (and there are restrictions on video games as to who can play them....)

Today's first-person shooter games have been shown by several sources to have an impact on these people. If they didn't desensitize people to killing, why would the military use them for just that purpose?

Do some research before you don't buy it. I used to hold the same stance, but have changed that stance due to looking into it. Lt. Col. Dave Grossman specializes in the pschology of killing and has been cited numerous times on the subject.

I won't say that playing these games makes a person a killer, but I do believe it will play into a mentally ill person's psyche.

01-22-2013, 05:46 PM

Bones42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catch22

...We're talking about a style of firearm that just happens to have been used in a couple of high-profile incidents while ignoring the fact that the men wielding them have psychiatric issues...

And to me, restricting those weapons will help stop future events.

01-22-2013, 06:03 PM

FyredUp

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bones42

Have not heard anyone ever state that.

No one denies there are more deaths by other methods.

But those other methods have a purpose other than killing. Guns don't. That is what a gun was designed for. That is a little difference.

Only for killing? Really? What am I killing when I am target shooting? You see, that is 99+% of what I do with my firearms, target shoot. Probably far less than the 1% left is they get used for eliminating pest animals or wild animals with distemper on my property.

01-22-2013, 06:06 PM

FyredUp

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bones42

Ah, the video game theory. I grew up playing Asteroids and Space Invaders. Has not led me to want to be in space shooting aliens. I also played a lot of Pong (the Atari version) and that has not made me want to be a ping pong player.

No, I don't buy into the video game playing makes someone act certain ways theory. (and there are restrictions on video games as to who can play them....)

Now this is quite possibly the funniest thing you have ever posted. The restriction is on who can buy them. I know parents that bought their young children Grand theft auto and the Halo games which are filled with violence and supposedly for mature audiences.

The truth is TV, movies, and video games influence people with little or no parental supervision or guidance.

01-22-2013, 06:10 PM

FyredUp

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bones42

And to me, restricting those weapons will help stop future events.

Because they are used in an insigificant amount of incidents statistically, the effect on overall gun violence will be minimal.

I am not downplaying the pain and suffering of those that lost loved ones, but they are no more significant than the mugging victim shot and killed over his wallet, or the rape victim murdered by an armed assailant.

01-22-2013, 06:17 PM

Catch22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bones42

And to me, restricting those weapons will help stop future events.

I would love to know how.

The last AWB didn't stop Klebold and Harris from using weapons listed specifically, by name, in that ban. Lanza stole the weapons he used. William Spangler obtained his weapons illegally. Thomas White stole his fathers gun, a gun his father possessed illegally as a convicted felon. Timothy McVeigh violated how many laws in building the bombs that destroyed the Murrah building?

The Clinton-era AWB had no discernable effect, per the people that Feinstein says studied it and stated otherwise (she only cites the parts she wants, as if that's surprising). Chicago's weapons restrictions have had little effect, especially considering 96% of homicides in that city are by people with a prior history and 80% are gang-related.

Aside from that, an AWB would have had zero effect on the shooting in Tuscon or Virginia Tech.

Why is it you gun-control folks cannot wrap around your head the fact that criminals don't give a rats arse about the law? They don't care that these weapons are illegal, they are going to obtain them anyway.

We have numerous laws already on the books that aren't enforced. What in the world makes you think that anyone other than the law-abiding citizen is going to follow these new laws? Sane, rational, law-abiding citizens don't commmit these atrocities. The mentally ill and criminals do, and they don't give a rip about what law gets passed.

Here's a concept that I guarantee will work. Get the guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, gang members, and criminals.

I'm not an advocate for putting more guns in the hands of people, that's asking for problems. There are a ton of law-abiding citizens that have no business with a gun in their hand in public. It's asking for the wrong person to get shot. I actually won a free lunch by proving this to someone who said they've never seen where an innocent bystander was wounded by a CCW permit-holder when trying to prevent a crime. It has happened and I have no doubt it will happen again.

What I'm advocating, as well as many opposed to this new round of gun control measures, is getting the guns out of the hands of people who aren't supposed to have them, or shouldn't have them and leaving the law-abiding gun owners alone.

What I want is someone to show me evidence this new gun control measure is going to stop these killings. How is it going to keep these mentally ill people from using another tool? How is it going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals?

They can't do it. The statistics show its not going to happen, but for some reason the gun control crowd has this delusion that these people are suddenly going to actually abide by the law. Its a fantasy, at best.

But those other methods have a purpose other than killing. Guns don't. That is what a gun was designed for.

I am so sick hearing that falsehood repeated as if it were gospel.

Firearms are designed to accurately propel a projectile. They have multiple purposes and for the majority in civilian use that purpose isn't killing. Of those used for that purpose, the vast majority are used to kill game.

If you object to that you'd better be vegan...

01-22-2013, 10:25 PM

BULL321

In response to my letter to my Congressman concerning the renewed attack on our 2nd Amendment rights. It sums up my thoughts to a "T" and I thought that I would share it with you guys.

Mark Meadows Eleventh District, North Carolina

1516 Longworth Office Building (202) 225-6401
January 17, 2013

Dear Mr. :

Thank you for contacting my office regarding your concerns over the possibility of increased gun regulation in light of the recent tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut. Your views are very important, and I appreciate you taking the time to share them with me.

When I heard about the tragedy that took place in Connecticut on December 14, 2012, I was shocked and deeply saddened over this senseless attack on innocent children, teachers and school administrators. As a father, I cannot begin to imagine the horror that those families are going through, as they grieve the loss of their children and loved ones. My thoughts and prayers are with all of them during this difficult time.

Like most Americans, I am horrified by these crimes. The tragedy in Newtown has, once again, brought the debate over our Second Amendment rights to the forefront and has renewed assertions that more restrictive guns laws would have prevented the tragedy in Newtown and other violent crimes.

As a strong defender of the Second Amendment, I will always fight to secure the right of law-abiding citizens to purchase and bear personal firearms. I believe that the best way to prevent acts of violence is to resolutely enforce our criminal laws and to give our citizens proper guidance and training so that they are familiar with firearms and prepared to defend themselves should the need arise. I am working hard with local school officials and sheriff’s departments to figure out what additional measures we can take to ensure that our schools are as safe as possible.

The bottom line is that criminals and individuals who intend to do harm to others are not deterred by additional rules and regulations prohibiting gun ownership. Restricting the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves and their families against harm by enacting strict gun-control laws would only further expose the innocent to violent crime.

Again, thank you for contacting my office. Your feedback and suggestions are always welcome. It is an honor to serve as your United States Congressman. If you have not done so already, please visit my website – http://www.meadows.house.gov/ – and sign up for my eNewsletter.

Sincerely,
Mark Meadows
Member of Congress

MM/pf

01-22-2013, 11:37 PM

Bones42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catch22

...What I'm advocating, as well as many opposed to this new round of gun control measures, is getting the guns out of the hands of people who aren't supposed to have them, or shouldn't have them and leaving the law-abiding gun owners alone...

Wouldn't making the sale of those guns illegal reduce the number that is available for criminals to steal? Can you guarantee that once a law abiding gun owner has the gun, it will never fall into a criminals hands or that law abiding person turns violent?

If they don't have that particular gun in the first place....it can't be stolen, it can't be used to commit a crime, it can't be misused.

And that one, miniscule percentage, rare occurrence act....has been stopped.

Or....we can sit here and just hope it doesn't happen again.

01-22-2013, 11:40 PM

Bones42

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeputyMarshal

I am so sick hearing that falsehood repeated as if it were gospel.

Firearms are designed to accurately propel a projectile. They have multiple purposes and for the majority in civilian use that purpose isn't killing. Of those used for that purpose, the vast majority are used to kill game.

If you object to that you'd better be vegan...

How much big game is taken down with pistols?

01-22-2013, 11:58 PM

GTRider245

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bones42

Wouldn't making the sale of those guns illegal reduce the number that is available for criminals to steal? Can you guarantee that once a law abiding gun owner has the gun, it will never fall into a criminals hands or that law abiding person turns violent?

If they don't have that particular gun in the first place....it can't be stolen, it can't be used to commit a crime, it can't be misused.

And that one, miniscule percentage, rare occurrence act....has been stopped.

Or....we can sit here and just hope it doesn't happen again.

So, according to you, the sheer possiblilty of one of my firearms being stolen and used for a crime by a criminal (who could have easily obtained firearms in one of the multiple other illegal ways) is justificaton for me not being able to have it? Even thought you have been presented with the fact that a very small amount of gun crime is actually commited with the weapons in question? Typical liberal; ignore all facts on a subject and run around them.

You sound like a textbook Socialist. Do you economic theories mirror yours of gun control?

01-23-2013, 06:54 AM

RFDACM02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bones42

Wouldn't making the sale of those guns illegal reduce the number that is available for criminals to steal? Can you guarantee that once a law abiding gun owner has the gun, it will never fall into a criminals hands or that law abiding person turns violent?

If they don't have that particular gun in the first place....it can't be stolen, it can't be used to commit a crime, it can't be misused.

And that one, miniscule percentage, rare occurrence act....has been stopped.

Or....we can sit here and just hope it doesn't happen again.

By that argument we'd need to make computers illegal as they certainly allow people to research numerous ways to build bombs, chemical suicides, make drugs, etc, etc... AAfter all if it saves just one human life it'll be worth it right? Your advocating a life over any right? Nearly the opposite of the foundation this country was built on.

01-23-2013, 09:37 AM

SPFDRum

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bones42

How much big game is taken down with pistols?

I can only speak for Minnesota, but here it's fairly common for individuals to hunt big game with a pistol.

01-23-2013, 09:49 AM

SPFDRum

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bones42

Wouldn't making the sale of those guns illegal reduce the number that is available for criminals to steal? Can you guarantee that once a law abiding gun owner has the gun, it will never fall into a criminals hands or that law abiding person turns violent?

If they don't have that particular gun in the first place....it can't be stolen, it can't be used to commit a crime, it can't be misused.

And that one, miniscule percentage, rare occurrence act....has been stopped.

Or....we can sit here and just hope it doesn't happen again.

Again with the Utopian dream world beliefs.
Punish the law abiding citizen because as far as you are concerned it's ok for criminals to break the law.
Again, quit speaking out from under your mother's skirt and show me any proof that bans or restrictions have been successful from preventing the criminal element from being just that, criminal. It's been shown on here numerous times that knives, and even hands are used in more murders. You honestly believe that will all suddenly stop because guns are no longer available?
Go and check England and Australia's crime rate since their gun bans. Let us know what you find.

01-23-2013, 11:15 AM

Chenzo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bones42

Wouldn't making the sale of those guns illegal reduce the number that is available for criminals to steal? Can you guarantee that once a law abiding gun owner has the gun, it will never fall into a criminals hands or that law abiding person turns violent?

Can you guarantee that criminals won't get there hands on guns through other channels? Nope. Invalid argument. Black market, hell if you're a Mexican drug cartel our government will give you guns, and you can make an AK-47 out of a shovel.

There's no way to eliminate the firearms in a fashion that will drastically reduce crimes and murders committed with them. The deeper issue needs to be addressed. Harsher penalties for gun crimes, no lax or parole for gun crimes, re-evaluate the mental health system, and educate law abiding citizens on the benefits of carrying a firearm, instead of scaring them into thinking they are evil.

01-23-2013, 11:16 AM

Chenzo

Quote:

Originally Posted by SPFDRum

I can only speak for Minnesota, but here it's fairly common for individuals to hunt big game with a pistol.

Same in Northern Wisconsin. Pistols are a very common firearm used for bear.